Mainstream Journalism

A Problem I have with the so-called mainstream journalism

OK, we all know that our northern neighbors think it has to be damn impossible for anyone in America to know anything about hockey. That's not cool, but it has always been that way. Personally, I grew up reading stuff by guys who covered the Whalers for the Hartford Courant (fish wrap, by the way) and everyone in The Hockey News. So, yeah, I guess I might take umbrage with the attitudes of out Canadian friends.

One scribe who has to be on every hockey fans must-read list is Eric Duhatschek of the Globe and Mail. He has to be one of the two or three "international" columnists that every has to read if they want to keep up with the NHL. This is not, I understand, huge news to you, dear reader, because I am fully aware that if you're reading my musings you have to already know Eric Duhatschek. The guy is in the Hall of Fame, for Pete's sake.

I name-drop Mr. Duhatschek to speak about another point. In today's Globe and Mail, Duhatschek has an excellent column about the NHLPA hiring a new executive director, Paul Kelly, and the obstacles that face him while we wait for him to be confirmed. In the column, Duhatschek digs into the well for the old chestnut about how the league failed to capitalize on the good will surrounding the Rangers Stanley Cup victory in 1994. This fact simply cannot be understated or disputed. What can be is in the following passage--as written today in the Globe and Mail:

"...hockey was deemed "hot" by Sports Illustrated, while basketball was deemed 'not'."

Again, we can't dispute the fact that SI actually maintained that the NHL was about to leap over the NBA in popularity in 1994. In fact, we've heard and read so much about that statement that it's probably going to be some poor hockey fan's last words on his or her deathbed. And yet, it simply does not make sense.

In this digital age, does anyone who isn't waiting to get their teeth cleaned actually read Sports illustrated? There's no doubt that in days gone by, SI was as important for sports fans to read as religiously as stock traders would read the Wall Street Journal. But that is many, many years ago. Now, the only people who think SI is still the make-or-break publication are aging baby boomers who remember the importance of SI in the rear view mirror and professional writers who would still think that being an SI staff writer would be the pinnacle of an ink-stained career.

Don't get me wrong. I still go to SI.com each Monday morning to read Peter King's NFL column. When he isn't talking about watching "House" or his daughters, PK has tons of great NFL information that you can't get watching ESPN and being yelled at. But to think that the opinion of a magazine such as SI holds any more weight than a guy who writes on newsday.com or globeandmail.com just because SI is such an established "brand name" is foolish. In the information age we live in, your average person can pick and choose where to get information. If you want world events, you can go to newsweek.com to get the news, but I dare you to navigate that website without frustration.

Again, where you go for news doesn't really matter. The internet has re-written all of the rules. This is what the older newspaper people don't get. No one sees SI as the be-all and end-all trend-maker it very well may have been back in the day when there was one horse in town. No one sees The Hockey News in the same way either. Hell, I used to read that thing cover-to-cover twice before the next one would arrive. I saved them all like some kids collected comic books. I cared about who was on the cover. I'd bring the thing to games and pour over the box scores to see how players in the west had been doing because I never read much about the Calgary Flames or Vancouver Canucks in my local paper. Now, I don't even subscribe to THN and that shocks the hell out of me every so often but in the end, it doesn't matter. I can get anything I want immediately just by clicking around--just like everybody else does.

Now, after writing this, I see that I have to say that no matter what you read and no matter who writes it, in the end, the opinion of a magazine trying to sell, you know, more magazines, doesn't matter. Hell, last year Sports Illustrated picked the Miami Dolphins to win the freaking Super Bowl. (Let me pause for just a second for that to sink in.) THE MIAMI freaking DOLPHINS!! Yes, the same Dolphins--who a good friend who is a fan of them reminds me--are 6-16 since SI made that stunning prediction a year ago. The very same Fish who are rocking an 0-6 record this season.

In the end, American hockey fan, please remember to think for yourself. Even the "experts" can be very, very wrong and very, very lazy. SI's opinion as to whether or not hockey needs to be covered as we NHL fans would like it to be means nothing in this day and age. ESPN's decision to inundate their viewers with NBA NBA NBA doesn't make the sport more popular with their viewers even though the corporation wants to believe that they are decision makers. And an expert in Canada trumping out an old chestnut about old media doesn't mean that either of them are correct; even if we like 99% of what the guy writes. It just means that a long time ago, people cared about what SI wrote about and said. A very long time ago. Nowadays, the only people who read SI are those waiting to get allergy shots or haircuts. And you know what? They're flipping through the magazines, trying to find something worth reading to pass the time. You can't hang your hat on that in the internet age.